Here Their Loved Ones Are Being Held

1 ACCESS DENIED

Access Denied is a three-part report series that looks at the serious deterioration that has been happening to due process in China. This first volume,Access Denied: China’s Vanishing Suspects, examines the police practice of registering suspects under fake names at pre-trial detention centres, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to access their clients or for families to know where their loved ones are being held. The second volume, Access Denied: China’s False Freedom, researches the ‘non-release release’ phenomenon, as first coined by US professor of law Jerome Cohen, in which prisoners, once freed from jail or a detention centre, continue to be arbitrarily confined by the police, usually at a secret location or at their home for weeks, months or even years. The final volume,Access Denied: China’s Legal Blockade, looks at the multitude of ways police employ to deny suspects legal assistance, including the use of threats or torture to force them into renouncing their own lawyer and accepting state-appointed counsel.

About Safeguard Defenders

Safeguard Defenders is a human rights NGO founded in late 2016. It undertakes and supports local field activities that contribute to the protection of basic rights, promote the rule of law and enhance the ability of local civil society and human rights defenders in some of the most hostile environments in Asia.

https://safeguarddefenders.com | @safeguarddefend

Access Denied: China’s Vanishing Suspects

Published by Safeguard Defenders

This report may not be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in whole or in part by any means including graphic, electronic, or mechanical without expressed written consent of the publisher/author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles and reviews.

Keywords: China, Human Rights, Criminal Justice, Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

2 Introduction...... 4

Hidden in Detention...... 6 The fake name...... 7 RSDL...... 8 Duration...... 8 Reasons...... 8 Lawyer Access...... 9 Secret names...... 10 Other uses of fake names...... 10

Three disappearances...... 11

Lawless...... 17 Detention Centre Law...... 17 Registration of new detainees...... 17 Informing the family...... 18 Access to legal counsel and family members...... 18 International Law...... 19 New Draft Detention Centre Law...... 19

Conclusion...... 20

Appendix 1: Methodology...... 21

Appendix 2: Data...... 21

3 according to interviews with family members of Introduction victims made for this report.

China has a long history of state-sponsored This illegal practice of forcing detainees to accept disappearances. Such practices have only fake names is not a new phenomenon. HRDs have multiplied and become more institutionalised and long reported being given fake names in detention far-reaching under General Secretary Xi Jinping, (and sometimes in prison or prison hospital), but who came to power in late 2012. For example, anecdotally at least, after the introduction of RSDL, since 2013, security forces have been legally the practice appears to have become much more able to use a custodial system called Residential widespread. It is as if the legalization of six months Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) of enforced disappearance under RSDL has given to hold suspects incommunicado at isolated Chinese security forces the confidence to extend facilities for up to six months, entirely cut off from their powers with no legal basis to keep suspects the outside world, including any contact with separate from society for as long as possible. family and legal counsel.1 Police began using this custodial practice on a large scale against human Living with a fake name for a prolonged rights defenders (HRDs) beginning in July 2015 period lengthens the isolation the victims are with the launch of the 709 Crackdown (sometimes subjected to, especially if it follows six months of called the War against Lawyers).2 incommunicado RSDL detention. Rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang’s six months of RSDL was When police believe they have enough evidence followed by almost three years and four months for the case against a suspect, he or she is often living with a fake name in two detention centres, transferred from RSDL to a detention centre and even after sentencing. formally arrested. In theory, this would mean they would now have the right to access a lawyer While the mental torture this causes the victim is and that their family would be informed of their unimaginable, it also results in extended anguish location and could send them supplies, such as for family members and loved ones. In the words food and money and apply for permission to visit of Yuan Shanshan, the wife of human rights lawyer (although this latter is not a guaranteed right under Xie Yanyi, who lived with his fake name for a year, Chinese law). she felt that “time had stopped after they took [my husband].” However, in practice, Chinese police are increasingly extending the length of time a victim remains disappeared by illegally registering them under fake names at detention centres. This ensures that they continue to be untraceable by their families, friends and lawyers, effectively denying them the rights that they have under Chinese law to see a lawyer once they have been arrested and placed in a detention centre. That right should be honoured within 48 hours of a request being made by the victim, or their family, which has power of attorney to appoint a lawyer.3 This change of name is made with absolutely no legal authority. With no record of them under their real name, the detention centre can simply deny the detainee is being held at the facility, leaving their family and lawyer with no way of reaching them. “There’s no one here by that name,” is the typical response by detention centre staff,

had no idea she had been given a fake name, Hidden in detention Su Erqi (苏二七), until more than half a year into While this study focused on HRDs, media reports her detention at Nanhai Detention Centre in indicate that the practice of hiding suspects in Guangdong province. Like Ni, she did not go detention with a fake name extends to general through the formal registration process when she prisoners too.4 In our research we interviewed first arrived and she was forbidden from speaking ten victims and recorded a total of 30 cases that to other inmates. Her false identity became a joke spanned 11 years from 2009 to 2019. Of these, for the detention centre staff once they found out. we collected a minimum of basic data for 27 She was also aware that police used a fake name cases, including the fake name. More than half of for her on the two occasions they checked her these cases were HRDs disappeared during the into hospital. Su had to endure the indignity of 709 Crackdown. They involve detention centres not being called by her real name for three years, from across the country from Beijing and Tianjin in until she was finally released. She believes this was the north, Henan in the centre and several in the done to her to prevent other inmates talking about south including the cities of Guangzhou, Shenzhen her case outside after they were released and also and Zhuhai. Please find the Methodology under to more easily hide the evidence if she were to die Appendix 1. in detention. 刘四新 The experience of being given a fake name in Legal scholar Liu Sixin ( ) describes how he detention varies – some were told about it directly; found out his colleague, rights activist Zhai Yanmin 翟岩民 others only found out about it much later. Many ( ), had been given a fake name while he was suspects were brought into a detention centre also in a detention centre. straight from the police station, others only after “I was in the cell when the cell leader told a lengthy spell in RSDL. However, in all cases the someone to switch over to CCTV-13, even practice is an illegal means to deny the detainee though we were not allowed to watch the both their rights to see a lawyer or a lawyer of their news. The guards outside were not paying choice (either throughout or for a period of time); much attention to us. The news reported prevent contact with sources of support such as that Zhai Yanmin had been given a three- family and friends; and in all cases, deny them their year suspended sentence. One of the other very identity. prisoners in my cell who had been transferred from the same detention centre as When rights lawyer Ni Yulan (倪玉兰)—who was Zhai said: ‘That’s Zhai Tiancheng!’ Zhai had crippled by a police beating during an earlier been given the name Tiancheng when he incarceration and now uses a wheelchair—was was locked up, to conceal his real identity. I’d detained again in 2011 at Xicheng District been given a fake name too—Liu Shunli. We Detention Centre in Beijing, she wasn’t even given were given false names so no one could find the dignity of a ‘real’ name. During roll call on her us. Technically, there was no one called Liu first day, officers called her Xikan Yihao西看一号 ( ), Sixin in my cell. I was not allowed to disclose Number One Xicheng Detention Centre. She was my real name, not even to my cellmates.”6 not properly processed when she first entered the detention centre—the officer checking her in did 谢燕益 not have the right paperwork so a senior official Lawyer Xie Yanyi ( ) was disappeared on 12 gave permission to bypass this requirement. July 2015. After six months of incommunicado Officers told her later to keep her real name secret detention (no RSDL notice was even issued), he from detention centre guards and she was not was formally arrested. permitted to talk to other inmates. She was never “By January 2016, I was formally arrested told the reason for this, but she believes that it was on charges of ‘inciting subversion of state to prevent her from accessing legal help. Ni was power,’ and was transferred to Tianjin No. 2 later sentenced to two years and eight months on Detention Centre. When I got to Tianjin No. charges of fraud and inciting a disturbance.5 2, they wouldn’t use my own name. They gave me an alias—Xie Zhendong.“7 Women’s rights activist Su Changlan (苏昌兰) 6 This study used data from these 30 cases to investigate six key areas: the choice of fake name; whether victims were former RSDL prisoners; how long victims were made to live with the fake name; why police use fake names; was it successful in preventing lawyer access; and how victims were informed, if at all, about the fake name. Please see Appendix 2 for the list of these 30 cases.

The fake name

The fake name often retains the Wu Gan family name

The fake name usually bears some similarity to the original name. For example, police tend to retain the family name of the detainee for the new fake name. In 19 out of 27 cases, the family name was the same. For example, rights activist Wu Gan (吴淦) was renamed Wu Ming (吴明); lawyer Wang Yu (王宇) became Wang Ning (王宁); while her husband and fellow activist Bao Longjun (包龙军) was given the name Bao Yuzhuo (包宇卓). This could simply be a lack of creativity on the part of the police, or employed to make it easier to identify them once the name had been changed. Some of the names were hardly changed at all—just the second given name was dropped or swapped for a similar sounding character. For example: rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang (王全璋) simply became Wang Quan (王全), while activist Liu Yongping (刘永平) was called Liu Yongming (刘 Wu Gan (吴淦) is a rights activist and blogger in 永明). However, even such minor changes would his 40s, who attracted attention to his protests mean the detention centre could not match a through the use of provocative slogans such as visitation request. mocking corrupt officials by portraying them with pig heads. He defended those he saw In the early years of our study sample, the name as being victims of the state, most famously could be quite different. For example, blogger Deng Yujiao, who had killed a Communist Party activist Liu Dejun (刘德军), who was detained official when he tried to rape her. Just before during the 2011 Jasmine Revolution8, was given he was detained by police in 2015, Wu had the number, “2-2011-2”, while Ni Yulan was called started working for Fengrui Law Firm, the main “Number One Xicheng Detention Centre”, named target of the 709 Crackdown. In detention, Wu after the facility she was detained in. was forced to use the fake name Wu Ming. He is seen as a hero for refusing to take part in a forced televised confession. It took one and a half years for police to allow him to see a lawyer. On Christmas Day 2017, he was handed down the unusually harsh sentence of eight years for state subversion. In 2018, an attempt to appeal his sentence failed.

7 RSDL Reasons

Fake names were often given While official reasons for to prisoners coming from RSDL assigning a fake name to a suspect are rarely given, many Because our research focuses on HRDs, and believe it is to deny access to a many HRDs were held in RSDL during the 709 Crackdown, the bulk of the cases in this study lawyer or news about their case were moved into detention following at least being leaked outside by other several months held under RSDL, where they inmates would have been kept incommunicado and at a secret location. In such cases, being given a fake name meant the continuation of this isolation from Most victims are not told their loved ones and legal help. Lawyer Wang why they must accept the Quanzhang remained incommunicado for almost fake name. Some are simply four years—living for six months under RSDL and informed, “It’s for your own then being given a false name after formal arrest and relocation to two detention centres, even after good” trial and sentencing. The most common reasons victims thought they While we cannot conclude that the practice had been given a fake name were: to deny them of giving fakes names is mostly used on RSDL access to a lawyer and prevent others in the victims since we lack data from the wider detainee detention centre from finding out their story and population, we can conclude that it is widely used telling people outside, especially if their case was on HRDs held under RSDL. high profile with a lot of media attention, like that of Wang Quanzhang’s. If they were lawyers, there Duration was even more reason for the police to want to keep their identity hidden, since inmates tend to treat lawyers better believing they might get legal Victims typically have to live advice or help. Other reasons were: it would be with the fake name for around easier to hide the news if they died in detention six months, but it can be up to and it was a way to weaken their morale still further by preventing their family sending them money years and supplies. This could make it easier for the police to coerce a confession or simply just to Wang Quanzhang lived with his fake name for punish the victim further. more than three years, the maximum duration recorded for this study. The average is between six and eight months, but Su Changlan also lived with her fake name for almost three years; and rights lawyer Xie Yanyi had his for just under one year. The name usually lasts until the suspect is released on bail or goes to trial. In Wang’s case, his fake name was retained for several months after sentencing, and only removed when he was transferred from the detention centre to prison.

8 Lawyer access

Overwhelmingly, victims of fake names in detention were not able to see a lawyer or a lawyer of their choice, particularly those who were caught up in the 709 Crackdown Wang Yu

Twenty of the 30 victims (two unknowns) did not see a lawyer or a lawyer of their choice throughout their time in detention. Eight in our study did get to see a lawyer, but most of them only after waiting many months in detention. For example, activist Wu Gan, who received one of the harshest punishments of all 709 Crackdown victims—an eight-year sentence in 2017,9 was only allowed to see his lawyer after one and a half years. The same was true for democracy activist Qin Yongmin (秦永敏), one of China’s longest serving political prisoners. Others were given access after three to seven months. Note that under Chinese law, access to legal counsel for a detainee in a detention centre should be granted within 48 hours of a request for one.10

Wang Yu (王宇), is one of China’s most respected human rights lawyers and a recipient of numerous human rights awards. Wang dedicated herself to rights defense work in 2011 after her own experiences with police abuse and wrongful imprisonment. Her most high-profile cases include defending Uighur scholar Ilham Tohti (who was given a life sentence for separatism in 2014) and Cao Shunli (曹顺利), a women’s rights defender (who died in police custody that same year). In the middle of the night, on 9 July 2015, the authorities abducted Wang from her home in Beijing, sparking the 709 Crackdown. In detention, she ‘became’ Wang Ning, although she refused to accept the name. She never saw a lawyer throughout the two years she was kept in RSDL and detention. Wang was finally released in August 2016 after being forced to appear in several televised confessions.

9 Secret names Dissident writer Yu Jie (余杰) reported being beaten so badly by police in detention in 2012 While some were not informed that they took him to hospital, telling the doctors about the name change, those he had suffered an epileptic seizure. At the who were told were instructed hospital, police registered him under the fake to keep it secret from other name, Li Li. He believes that they did this so that if he died in hospital, his death would go inmates unreported.13 14 When Yu tried to explain to the doctors the next day that he had been beaten Many of those held under RSDL were told the by the police, an officer called the doctor to one night before they were transferred to the detention side, while another whispered to Yu that if he said centre or on the drive to the detention centre anything else to the doctors they would rip out all about their new fake name and that they were his tubes and he would die. not allowed to reveal their real name to the other inmates. While several complied, rights lawyers Xie Yanyi, Wang Yu and her husband Bao Longjun said they tried to resist. Wang Quanzhang agreed to keep it secret but quietly told the other inmates anyway because he wanted news of his whereabouts to be made public. He thought this could happen if they were released or if they were able to tell their lawyers about him (since they were generally allowed to meet with their legal counsel).

It was usually one of the interrogators or police officers handling the case that informed the detainee of their fake name. Earlier victims, like Su and Ni, were not told, they only found out later when detention centre staff called them by the fake name.

Other uses of fake names

Although this report focuses on the practice of registering victims with false names at detention centres, there have been reported instances of authorities using false names for prisoners in other forms of custody, most notably in prisons and hospital.

In 2018, Huang Wan (黄婉) tried to visit her husband Zhou Bin11 (周滨), who had been sentenced to 18 years for taking bribes back in 2016. When she and his lawyer went to Yichang Prison in Hubei province, they were told there was no one there by that name. Media reported that prison authorities had hidden him by registering him under an alias.12

10 Three disappearances Imposing a fake name on the detainee has practical and emotional implications for the victim’s family as well as for the victims themselves.

If police provide a detention notice to the family (this is a legal requirement that is sometimes violated), when they or the lawyers arrive at the named detention centre, they are usually told no one is there by that name because there is no ‘match’. It often takes repeated visits for the detention centre to finally admit that the detainee is being held there. A series of other tactics is then employed to prevent lawyer access, such as requesting the lawyer to apply for additional permissions or forcing the detainee to dismiss the lawyer hired by the family and accept a state- appointed one instead.15

When no detention notice is sent, but the family member finds out through a contact where their loved one is likely being held, the same process is repeated. But without the detention notice, police can stonewall lawyers and families for much longer.

We interviewed three wives of human rights lawyers about their experiences trying to locate their detained husbands. Their accounts are reproduced in the following pages.

11 Yu Wensheng Human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng (余文生) was grabbed by police in Beijing on 19 January 2018 while taking his son to school.16 He was disappeared shortly afterwards into RSDL in Xuzhou, more than 700km from his wife and child back in the capital. After he was formally arrested on 19 April 2018 and transferred to Xuzhou Detention Centre, he was allowed one brief video call with his wife, but has not been allowed to see her or his lawyers since. Police said he had sacked them, but in a video he recorded before he was taken, Yu said he would have to be tortured to accept state-appointed lawyers.17

Yu was tried secretly on 9 May 2019, accused of inciting subversion of state power, according to his wife. More than a year later, on 16 June 2020, she received a call from the Xuzhou City prosecutors informing her Yu had been sentenced to four years. There has been no record of that trial, the verdict or the sentencing. They told her Yu was planning to appeal.

Yu had taken on many sensitive cases including defending fellow rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang, representing parents of children who had been given faulty vaccines and suing the Beijing government over its poor handling of air pollution. In 2017, just a few months before he was seized, he had written an open letter calling for the resignation of Xi Jinping. During his imprisonment in 2018, Yu received the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law.

Xu Yan (许艳),Yu’s wife, was given a detention Xu nor the lawyers she hired ever got the chance notice in April 2018 stating that her husband was to meet Yu face to face. She told Safeguard being held at Xuzhou Detention Centre (no notice Defenders: was issued for his initial detention in Beijing). Each time she or a lawyer tried to visit him, detention “For such a long time, both me and centre staff gave her a different excuse, which the defence lawyers have not been initially included Yu’s name not being on the able to meet with Yu. He hasn’t spent detention centre’s register. Sometimes they said any of the money I deposited in [the there was “no one there by that name,” or that detention centre] for him [the total is their computer system didn’t show up anyone by still there]. I have my suspicions about that name. While Xu does not know whether he whether he was really held at that was given a fake name, or simply not registered detention centre. Some police told me properly at the detention centre—neither she nor that he had been held in solitary all a lawyer has been able to speak to Yu to ask him— this time. If this is true, then this makes her experiences mirror that of others whose family it much more likely that he has been members were made to take a fake name. tortured.”

Later, when the detention centre admitted Yu was For Xu, the situation has been harrowing. She lives being held there, excuses varied from insisting in Beijing with their young son, so has to make Xu or her lawyers complete overly complicated the long journey of around 700+ km every time procedures to make a visitation appointment, to she tries to find her husband. By the time of this staff not being on duty during weekends. Neither interview, November 2019, she had made the

12 journey more than 20 times, heading out about once or twice a month.

“I’m also really worried about whether he has been tortured. I don’t know how he’s doing. His disappearance has filled me with dread and worry. I’m frightened and I feel helpless.”

If China had rule of law, Xu could find a way to appeal, to fight back. But after more than two years since he disappeared, she has no idea whether he is even still alive.

“When a person is detained according to legal procedures, at the very least you can find out if they are dead or alive, you can find out if they are well or not. Being disappeared is being in a constant state of uncertainty. Anything could happen to you. Things could change at any time. Also, while he’s disappeared, if anything happens to him, he has no way to get any help from his family or his lawyers. [Yu] will feel even more helpless and isolated.”

In an interview in May 2020 to mark one year since his secret trial, Xu told Safeguard Defenders:

“It’s been extremely difficult. The days pass so slowly, they are like years. We are suffering both mentally and physically. Most importantly, we can’t stop worrying about Yu. Whether his health is OK, whether he would get a heavy sentence, (she has since found out he was given four years), and whether they will keep holding him and we’ll never be able to see him again.”

13 Zhai Yanmin Zhai Yanmin (翟岩民) is a human rights activist from Beijing, who sometimes worked with Fengrui Law Firm, a company famous for taking on sensitive cases including that of artist Ai Weiwei. Fengrui was the main target of the 709 Crackdown. Zhai was one of its first victims.

He was snatched by police on 15 June 2015 in Beijing, later accused of organizing a crowd to protest outside a courthouse in Weifang, Shandong province. Zhai was kept for almost six months incommunicado in RSDL facilities in Beijing and Tianjin. During his internment, when he had no access to lawyers or his family, police forced him into making recorded confessions with state TV journalists by threatening to detain his son if he did not cooperate. Three of these confessions were aired.

After his time in RSDL, Zhai spent the next half year in a detention centre in Tianjin under a fake name—Zhai Tiancheng—to hide his identity from the other prisoners and prevent his family from sending him money and providing legal counsel. On 2 August 2016, he was tried for subversion of state power, found guilty, and sentenced to three years, suspended for four.

Zhai’s wife Liu Ermin (刘二敏) did not receive a Soon, Liu started meeting with the wives of other detention notice when he was moved out of RSDL 709 victims, who also heard that their husbands in 2016 and into a detention centre. She explained: were all being kept in Tianjin. They travelled to the city together to give each other moral support and “I didn’t know where he had been detained, to try to meet with their husbands. Even after the so in mid-January [2016] I went to Xicheng detention centre admitted Zhai was being held District Police Station [in Beijing] to report there, they continued to block access to him by his disappearance. Only then did the police saying that he had hired his own state-appointed handling the case tell me that Zhai’s arrest lawyer so they wouldn’t allow another lawyer to had been formally approved, but I didn’t see him. If she tried to give him clothing or food, know where he was being detained. Two they said he had everything he needed. Zhai never days later, I received a call from a lawyer got access to a lawyer of his choice. named Zhang who told me [my husband] was in Tianjin… and when I went to the detention centre there, they told me there was no one there by that name.”

With Zhai seemingly disappeared it was agony for the family.

“It really affected me, because [he] had just disappeared! Of course, I was anxious, because at that time, his father who was 97 years old asked me every day to push him outside to go and look for Zhai. It didn’t matter if it was at nighttime, every day he kept on asking, for months and months.” 14 they were only responsible for reception, if I wanted to see [Xie], I had to apply to the Xie Yanyi relevant department, and then they would let us know.”

The next time she went, they did admit Xie was being held there but as in so many other cases, they tried a number of common tactics to prevent access, such as claiming he had hired his own lawyer and that access for family members required a complicated registration procedure and permission that always ended in long waits and no success.

It was a similar story if she tried to deposit money and items to give to Xie at the detention centre. Human rights lawyer Xie Yanyi (谢燕益) was disappeared by Chinese police in the summer “The staff would tell me that according to of 2015, placed under RSDL and beaten, the detention centre’s regulations, I could starved, tortured and forced to take “medicine”. only deposit if they informed us we could He was incarcerated for 553 days, during which deposit first. So, the first few times I tried, I time his wife gave birth to their baby daughter was unable to [deposit anything]. Later, when and his mother died. I was allowed to deposit, they would give me a paper with Xie Yanyi’s name on it, as Xie is a prominent and outspoken human rights if they were asking me to check the charac- lawyer based in Beijing. He gained notoriety ters, because his name was not registered in in 2003 when he attempted to sue former their computer. These excuses prevented us Chinese President Jiang Zemin for staying on as from seeing him and went on for a year until Central Military Commission Chairman after he [my husband] was released. That was when had stepped down from his General Secretary I finally learned that he had been using the and presidential posts. He has also represented name Xie Zhengdong inside the detention rights activists and villagers battling illegal land centre.” seizures and has published articles supporting freedom of speech and democracy in China. This lack of access made Yuan fearful her husband was being kept somewhere else entirely and caused her great anguish. Xie’s wife Yuan Shanshan (原珊珊) received the “I didn’t know whether he was in the deten- detention notice four days after Xie was formally tion centre or not. I didn’t even know if he arrested and sent to Tianjin No.2 Detention was still alive. I went to all the possible de- Centre on 8 January 2016. However, Xie had been tention centres he could be held in—to our registered under the fake name Xie Zhengdong, household registration address (Gaobeidian, causing problems from the outset. Yuan told Hebei), our residence (Miyun, Beijing) and so Safeguard Defenders: on. But I couldn’t find him. “The first time I went, I took a lawyer that I had hired to go and see him, and when I “Xie Yanyi’s mother is also a lawyer. She’s asked to see my husband, they said there a top-ranked national lawyer. She would was no one there by the name of Xie Yanyi. often say: ‘Where did they take my son, is So, I took the detention notice and showed he still alive?’ I wrote an indictment letter them, and they said maybe he hadn’t been against Xinhua, (China’s state news agency), registered yet. The staff at reception said and posted it online. Early the next morning, Guobao [national security police, of-

15 ficers usually in charge of political suspects] knocked on my door and asked me whose idea was it, to write that… My home was monitored, we were followed by guobao and people who didn’t show any identification (including when I took my son to and from school). Teachers monitored my son in class and reported everything to the guobao. The residential committee [members] in my housing compound would stop my son and ask him where I was. Surveillance cameras were installed outside my home. I didn’t dare leave my house.

“I always chose times when there were not many people around to go outside. I felt that time had stopped after they took Xie.”

16 protections. The Rules for the Implementation Lawless of Regulations of Detention Centres (RIRDC), This section includes commentary by Chinese published by the Ministry of Public Security, is also rights lawyers, who for their own protection, will simple in both concept and structure and lacks any remain anonymous. consideration of human rights or the basic rights of detainees. There is no single law in China that makes it illegal to register a suspect under a fake name at a The 2010 Details on Law Enforcement at Detention detention centre. There are, however, regulations Centres (DLEDC) compensate to a certain that govern the correct procedure for registering a degree for the shortcomings and loopholes of suspect at a detention facility that common sense the outdated DCL, but they also highlight the would dictate would render the police’s use of fake problem of the judiciary paying more attention to names illegal. “power”—that is the police—than they do to the rule of law, something which is deeply rooted in China’s It also conflicts with a suspect’s right to see a custodial and judicial systems. The situation is lawyer, regulations on notifying family members so bad that in 2019 a provincial deputy to the of the suspect’s registration at a detention centre, National People’s Congress called for the Ministry and the right to receive assistance—money and of Justice to take over the running of China’s essential supplies—from family members. detention centres from the police in order to better protect the rights of inmates. 22 It also effectively violates their right to a fair trial as it denies them the right to legal counsel of Registration of new detainees their choice; it increases the likelihood of their mistreatment and torture at the hands of the The concept of ID numbers (which can precisely police; and prolongs the mental agony of isolation identify an individual) was relatively new in 1990. from loved ones. China only started using an ID system from around the mid-1980s and it was not a national policy until Detention Centre Law 1991. This is why the DCL, published in 1990, does not directly reference these when covering how Practices at detention centres in China are to process the registration of a new inmate to a governed by the Detention Centre Law (看守 detention centre. 所条例)18 , enacted in 1990 under the Criminal Procedure Law (刑事诉讼法). The DCL does not clearly stipulate that a detainee’s identity must be confirmed, but it does stipulate In addition, Chinese law also regulates detention that details of the detainee must be entered into centre procedures with the Rules for the various forms. And although common sense would Implementation of Regulations of Detention dictate that this should include the ID number Centres (中华人民共和国看守所条例实施办法),19 of the person, the law itself did not specifically brought in a year later in 1991. mention that.

The Detention Centre Law (DCL) was For example, Article 12 of the DCL says that when 23 supplemented by Details on Law Enforcement at receiving “criminals” a file on the individual Detention Centres (看守所执法细则)20, an internal should be created. Article 6 of the RIRDC says that document published in 2010, in part to counteract the detainee should be questioned when received criticism of the treatment of inmates at detention by the detention centre, a “detainee registration centres and in particular after the well-publicised form” should be filled out, and that detention scandals of several deaths of suspects held in centres should handle the detainee’s documents Chinese detention.21 and access to these documents can only be given by the detention centre’s director. Since the DCL has not been revised for 30 years, it is significantly outdated in terms of human rights

17 There are several regulations listed in the DLEDC Informing the family that would make registering someone under a fake name unlawful. The first Article of Section 9 of the DLEDC, which covers special procedures for admitting detainees, In Section 2-1, on receiving a suspect into custody, stipulates that detention centres must inform the there are several regulations that cover the needed family or guardian of the detainee of their location paperwork for registering a new inmate to the within five days following the completion of detention centre. These include a “detention procedures to admit him or her. certificate” and an “arrest certificate,” which should clearly include the correct name of the individual. In addition, according to Article 85 of the 2012 Article 2.1.10 also clearly states that if any details Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), the case handling on the paperwork appear incorrect (presumably organ should inform the family within 24 hours this would include for example the name on the of placing an individual in a detention centre. notice not matching the name of the person Exceptions are made if family members cannot being admitted), then the individual “shall not be be located or notifying them would obstruct the admitted into custody [at the detention centre]24.” investigation (for example, the suspected crime is terrorism-related or concerns national security). “If the above-mentioned certificates are not The family are then notified as soon as it is deemed provided, or any stamp is not clear, or the content that doing so would not impact the investigation. of the certificate does not match the actual It has become the common practice for police to situation, [the person] shall not be admitted into pin national security crimes on HRDs, such as state custody [at the detention centre].” subversion or inciting state subversion, precisely because doing so allows the police free rein to Section 2-2, on verifying identity, makes this even keep the detainee incommunicado and hidden clearer. The detention centre must only accept under this “legal” loophole for longer. individuals whose identity can be confirmed. It states: Access to legal counsel and family “Detention centre police shall question the members detainee and verify their identity. If their identity information is inconsistent, then the individual shall Article 37 of the CPL also states that a detainee not be admitted into custody.” has the right to see their lawyer within 48 hours of asking for one—a period of time that many It is not clear whether detention centre staff are consider is still too long. In practice, of course, the always aware of the use of a fake name, but the detention centre routinely denies access for much use of ID cards in China is so entrenched that it longer using a myriad of tactics and excuses25, and is inconceivable that it is not standard procedure for those who are registered under a fake name, to check the ID card of any new suspect. It can they will have no access at all because their lawyer only be concluded that the police either order the has no means of locating them. Family members, detention centre staff to ignore the requirement to that have power of attorney, can appoint a lawyer verify the identity with the ID card, or tell staff that on the suspect’s behalf, and enjoy the same 48 they must register the suspect with the fake name hours access requirement. and not the one on the ID card. According to the CPL, DCL, RIRDC and DLEDC, lawyers have the right to make an appointment to meet their client held at the detention centre. Other counsels may request permission from the court and procuratorate to meet with the defendant.

However, there is no equivalent right for a family member to meet with a suspect, unless that family 18 member is acting as their legal counsel. Only So fundamental is the right to a fair trial—which lawyers and case-handling individuals have the can only occur if all rights in detention are also right to meet with a suspect at a detention centre. upheld—that it appears in countless international Family members, may, however file an application treaties, state practices, and jurisprudence. It is part with the case-handling organ to meet with the of customary international law and binding upon defendant, but there is no guarantee in law that states regardless of treaty ratification. For example, permission would be granted. If the defendant the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) wishes to contact a family member, they must first describes the right to a fair trial as “a key element get the permission of the case-handling organ and of human rights protection and serves as a the public security organ. procedural means to safeguard the rule of law.”

Families and friends are allowed to send detainees Being registered under a fake name so as to food and necessities while they are incarcerated. separate the individual from contact with family Indeed, they are expected to since very little is and lawyers renders him or her especially supplied by the detention centre. Article 3-12 of vulnerable to torture. Torture is so repugnant the DLEDC describes the process of accepting a violation of human rights, there are no goods or money from family members including circumstances that excuse the practice and under inspecting them for approval and providing specific conditions it may rise to the level of a receipts upon acceptance. Of course, if a fake crime against humanity. name is used, the family cannot complete the process of providing food and necessities to the New Draft Detention Centre Law detainee because there is no means of identifying them. In June 2017, the Ministry of Public Security released a new draft Detention Centre Law,29 which International Law included changing the reference to inmates from “criminals” to “suspects”30 but as of August 2020, Keeping a suspect under a false name in detention it has not yet been passed. Legal professionals unequivocally violates the right to a fair trial. The and the UN have long called on China to reform Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, its Detention Centre Law, largely because of the holds that: continued prevalence of torture and mistreatment at these facilities, including several deaths. 31 32 The “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the draft has also been criticized for not addressing right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty the continuing problem of excessive power being according to law in a public trial at which he has left in the hands of the police.33 While the draft law had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”26 mentions the procuratorate having the right to supervise detention centres, as we have seen with The right to a fair trial implies presumption of RSDL, where they also have the right to supervise innocence and therefore requires that the rights the police, they rarely do so in practice.34 of the detained person be upheld, such as the right to legal counsel. The Body of Principles for Another problematic area, is that the Ministry of the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Public Security (effectively the police) drafted Detention or Imprisonment27 rules that the right the new law (although it will be reviewed and of the detained person “to be visited by and eventually approved by the Standing Committee to consult and communicate, without delay or of the National People’s Congress). This means that censorship and in full confidentiality, with his legal the police are in charge of making laws to govern counsel may not be suspended or restricted” themselves. There is no question that they will be except under limited circumstances. Further, the strongly motivated to protect their own interests same Principles hold that communication “with and safeguard their own powers over any effort to the outside world, and in particular his family or improve the rule of law and protect the rights of counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter detainees. of days.”28

19 names is immediately halted; that all detainees Conclusion are granted their full rights under Chinese law Police in China have disproportionate power including their right to consult with a lawyer of over those they detain. In recent years, they have their choice in a timely fashion; for their families increasingly used a variety of tools, some legal and to be notified of where they are being held and to others extra-legal, but used with impunity, to keep freely send them funds and supplies; and to hold individuals isolated, helpless and incommunicado all police and detention centre staff accountable from their family and legal help. One approach for employing this abusive practice. that is increasingly utilized is the practice of registering people under fake names in detention centres. This ensures they are untraceable by their families, friends and lawyers and effectively denies them the rights that they have under Chinese law to see a lawyer once they have been arrested and placed in a detention centre. This is done with no legal authority. Under Chinese law, detention centre staff must verify incoming prisoners’ details and they must allow access to a lawyer within 48 hours of a request being made.

This phenomenon of forcing fake names on suspects is clearly planned and intentional, and its use has become so widespread that its practice can be considered systematic. It not only breaks domestic law; it is a violation of international human rights laws guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. Keeping someone isolated from their lawyer and family also places them at greater risk of torture; already a serious issue for detainees in China registered under their real names. While this is not the only tactic used by police to keep suspects isolated, it is one that causes great anguish for family and friends, because they will not even know for sure where their loved one is being held and may even doubt if they are still alive.35

Our study shows that the majority of victims are unable to see a lawyer of their choice and the few that eventually do wait months or a year to meet with legal counsel. Fake names are widely forced on victims of RSDL, causing extended suffering for the individual and their families from the continuation of the separation first enforced under RSDL that may last additional months or even years. Our research showed that victims typically live with a fake name for around six months, but it can be as much as three or more years.

Safeguard Defenders strongly urges the Chinese government to ensure that the practice of concealing detainees in detention under false 20 Appendix 1: Methodology Using existing networks, we searched for HRDs in China to find those who had been victims of fake names in detention. These individuals were then questioned about their experiences. Some responses were provided by the individual; several others were provided by family members who knew the situation. Key data gathered were: real name, fake name, name of detention centre, reasons given for fake name, their ideas why the fake name was given, duration and situation immediately before detention centre admission and whether or not they were given access to a lawyer of their choice.

If the victim or their family were unable to complete the survey, we used media reports to supplement the information.

We also searched online for media or NGO reports for examples of fake names in detention in both Chinese and English. The search terms used included various combinations of:

Chinese: 看守所 (detention centre), 假名 (fake name), 化名(alias), 关押 (detained/imprisoned), 拘留 (to detain), 访民 (petitioner), 维权 (rights defense) and 羁押 (to detain).

English: China, “detention centre”, “fake name”, “false name”, “detain”

We then tried to contact these individuals so that we could request them to complete a survey.

Appendix 2: Data The table of data on victims is on page 22.

21 Access to lawyer Yes Unknown Yes 7 months after Yes, case sent to prosecutor 3 months after Yes, 3 months after Yes, 7 months after Yes, Unknown No No No No No No No No No No No No No 1.5 years after Yes, No No 1.5 years after Yes, No No No No No Detention Center Liaoning DC, Fengcheng Beijing 1 DC, No. Beijing Xicheng DC, Guangdong Nanhai DC, Henan Xingyang DC, Henan 3 DC, No. Guangdong Nanhai DC, Unknown Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, 1 DC + No. No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Guangdong Zhuhai DC, Shenzhen 2 DC, No. Year 2009 2011 2011 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2018 2019 Fake Name (CN) Fake 陈东 2-2011-2 西看一号苏二七汪伟吴红陈伍李小龙谢正东唐彪辛平刘顺利翟天成王宁包宇卓勾平李小春胡适赵娜王全李富平吴明刘永明 Unknown 王强李娟高茗林旺文 Unknown Unknown Fake Name Fake Chen Dong 2-2011-2 Yihao Xikan Su Erqi Wei Wang Hong Wu Chen Wu Xiaolong Li Xie Zhengdong Biao Tang Xin Ping Liu Shunli Zhai Tiancheng Ning Wang Yuzhuo Bao Gou Ping Xiaochun Li Hu Shi Zhao Na Quan Wang Li Fuping Ming Wu Yongming Liu Unknown Qiang Wang Juan Li Gao Ming Wangwen Lin Unknown Unknown Name (CN) 冷国权刘德军倪玉兰苏昌兰刘地伟贾灵敏陈启棠习龙生谢燕益唐志顺幸清贤刘四新翟岩民王宇包龙军勾洪国李和平胡石根赵威王全璋李春富吴淦刘永平周世锋秦永敏李姝云高月林斌甄江华危志立 Name Guoquan Leng Liu Dejun Yulan Ni Su Changlan Liu Diwei Jia Lingmin Chen Qitang Xi Longsheng Yanyi Xie Zhishun Tang Xing Qingxian Liu Sixin Yanmin Zhai Yu Wang Bao Longjun Gou Hongguo Li Heping Hu Shigen Zhao Wei Quanzhang Wang Li Chunfu Gan Wu Yongping Liu Zhou Shifeng Yongmin Qin Li Shuyun Yue Gao Lin Bin Jianghua Zhen Zhili Wei

22 1 Although the law states that the detainees’ family should be notified, the police routinely resort to using exceptions of national security crimes to free themselves of this stipulation. 2 In the summer of 2015, hundreds of human rights lawyers, activists and other associates were arrested across the country in a largely successful effort by the authorities to crush the emerging human rights movement in China and now commonly known as the ‘709 Crackdown’. Dozens of people were disappeared into RSDL where they were threatened and tortured; some were forced to appear on national TV to make a forced confession. The highest profile lawyers and activists faced lengthy jail terms, while most of those eventually released who were lawyers lost their license to practice law. 3 Article 37 of China’s Criminal Procedure Law. 4 Leng Guoquan was a seafood trader accused of being part of a drug smuggling outfit. His family and Access to lawyer Yes Unknown Yes 7 months after Yes, case sent to prosecutor 3 months after Yes, 3 months after Yes, 7 months after Yes, Unknown No No No No No No No No No No No No No 1.5 years after Yes, No No 1.5 years after Yes, No No No No No lawyers struggled to locate him because when he was first detained he was registered under the fake name Chen Dong. Please see: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chinas-justice-practice-towards- the-adversarial-process-ipr.1000130.pdf 5 South China Morning Post, (undated), Dissident Ni Yulan jailed 32 months over protest. https://www. scmp.com/article/997890/dissident-ni-yulan-jailed-32-months-over-protest 6 “Ed. Dahlin, P., (2018), Trial By Media: China’s new show trials, and the global expansion of Chinese media. Safeguard Defenders. 7 China Change, (9 July 2018), Video: China’s lawyer crackdown 3 years on – ‘The most painful part of it all was the squandering of life’, Hong Kong Free Press. https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/07/09/video- Detention Center Liaoning DC, Fengcheng Beijing 1 DC, No. Beijing Xicheng DC, Guangdong Nanhai DC, Henan Xingyang DC, Henan 3 DC, No. Guangdong Nanhai DC, Unknown Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, 1 DC + No. No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 1 DC, No. Tianjin 2 DC, No. Guangdong Zhuhai DC, Shenzhen 2 DC, No. chinas-lawyer-crackdown-3-years-painful-part-squandering-life 8 The Jasmine Revolution was the name given to a series of small-scale pro-democracy protests across China starting on 20 February 2011. It was inspired by the pro-democracy protests that broke out in

Year 2009 2011 2011 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2018 2019 Tunisia just a few months earlier. 9 BBC, (26 December 2017), China’s ‘Super Vulgar Butcher’ activist Wu Gan gets eight years. https://www. bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42482916 10 Article 37 of China’s Criminal Procedure Law. 11 He is the son of China’s disgraced security chief Zhou Yongkong who is now serving life behind bars. 12 Radio Free Asia, (6 January 2018), 周永康之子周滨被用化名关押湖北监狱律师妻女要求会见被拒. https:// www.rfa.org/mandarin/Xinwen/9-01062018162859.html 13 Personal communication with Yu Jie. Fake Name (CN) Fake 陈东 2-2011-2 西看一号苏二七汪伟吴红陈伍李小龙谢正东唐彪辛平刘顺利翟天成王宁包宇卓勾平李小春胡适赵娜王全李富平吴明刘永明 Unknown 王强李娟高茗林旺文 Unknown Unknown 14 Society for Threatened Peoples, (April 2012), Enemies of the State: Persecuted Writers in China. https:// www.gfbv.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Reporte_Memoranden/2012/ChinaReportEngl-1.pdf 15 This will discussed further in Access Denied: Legal Blockade, part three of this series due out later in 2020. 16 Safeguard Defenders, (6 May 2020), Where is Chinese rights lawyer Yu Wensheng? https://

Fake Name Fake Chen Dong 2-2011-2 Yihao Xikan Su Erqi Wei Wang Hong Wu Chen Wu Xiaolong Li Xie Zhengdong Biao Tang Xin Ping Liu Shunli Zhai Tiancheng Ning Wang Yuzhuo Bao Gou Ping Xiaochun Li Hu Shi Zhao Na Quan Wang Li Fuping Ming Wu Yongming Liu Unknown Qiang Wang Juan Li Gao Ming Wangwen Lin Unknown Unknown safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/where-chinese-rights-lawyer-yu-wensheng 17 Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD0VYOAPSWoE 18 Congressional-executive Commission on China, (17 March 1990), Regulations on Detention Centers of the People’s Republic of China (Chinese Text). Accessed from: https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal- provisions/regulations-on-detention-centers-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-chinese 19 The text in Chinese of these Rules was accessed here: https://www.c ecc.gov/resources/legal-

Name (CN) 冷国权刘德军倪玉兰苏昌兰刘地伟贾灵敏陈启棠习龙生谢燕益唐志顺幸清贤刘四新翟岩民王宇包龙军勾洪国李和平胡石根赵威王全璋李春富吴淦刘永平周世锋秦永敏李姝云高月林斌甄江华危志立 provisions/regulations-on-detention-centers-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-chinese 20 The text of these Details in Chinese was accessed here: https://www.66law.cn/tiaoli/1724.aspx 21 Eds. Biddulph, S., Nesossi, E., Sapio, F. & Trevaskes, S., (2016), Legal reforms and deprivation of liberty in contemporary China, London: Routledge. 22 Xiao, H. & Ren, Q., (8 March 2019), Legislator Calls for Taking Away Detention Centers From Police to Protect Suspects, Caixin Global. https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-03-08/legislator-calls-for-taking- away-detention-centers-from-police-to-protect-suspects-101389580.html Name Guoquan Leng Liu Dejun Yulan Ni Su Changlan Liu Diwei Jia Lingmin Chen Qitang Xi Longsheng Yanyi Xie Zhishun Tang Xing Qingxian Liu Sixin Yanmin Zhai Yu Wang Bao Longjun Gou Hongguo Li Heping Hu Shigen Zhao Wei Quanzhang Wang Li Chunfu Gan Wu Yongping Liu Zhou Shifeng Yongmin Qin Li Shuyun Yue Gao Lin Bin Jianghua Zhen Zhili Wei 23 At this stage, of course, the individual would still be a suspect, but the language of the DCL of 1990 refers to them as criminals. A new draft version of the law, that was still not passed as of August 2020, changes that language to the more internationally accepted “suspect”.

23 24 The relevant articles are as follows: • Article 2-1.1 Suspects and defendants detained and arrested shall be taken into custody on the basis of the “detention certificate” and the “arrest certificate” according to the law. • Article 2-1.2 During the investigation stage, those who are detained in different administrative areas at or above the county level shall be taken into custody by providing “detention certificate”, “arrest certificate” and the approval procedures of the common higher-level public security supervision department of the two places. • Article 2-1.3 If the jurisdiction is changed, the legal documents that change the jurisdiction of the case-handling authority and the designated jurisdictional decision letter shall be provided in order to take the individual into custody. • Article 2-1.10 If the above-mentioned certificates are not provided, or any stamp is not clear, or the content of the certificate does not match the actual situation, [the person] shall not be admitted into custody [at the detention centre]. 25 This is the subject of another Safeguard Defenders’ report, Access Denied: Legal Blockade, to be published later in 2020. 26 The text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found here: http://www.un.org/en/ universal-declaration-human-rights/ 27 The text of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment can be found here: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ bodyprinciples.pdf 28 Ibid. 29 The text of the new draft detention law in Chinese was accessed here: https://www.mps.gov.cn/ n2254536/n4904355/c5728120/content.html 30 Lewis, M.K., (23 July 2017), Behind the Walls and Laws of Chinese Detention Centers, The News Lens. https://international.thenewslens.com/article/74131 31 Lew, L., (14 December 2019), Unofficial survey reveals appalling conditions in China’s detention centres, South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3042068/ unofficial-survey-reveals-appalling-conditions-chinas-detention 32 Ni, D., (19 June 2017), Lawyers Skeptical About China’s New Detention Center Law, Sixth Tone. https:// www.sixthtone.com/news/1000357/lawyers-skeptical-about-chinas-new-detention-center-law 33 Ibid. 34 The Provisions on People’s Procuratorates’ Oversight of Residential Surveillance in a Designated Location, which came into effect in 2016, stipulates that the Procuratorate (Prosecutor’s office) may (but is not required) to visit those held in RSDL on a weekly basis and to provide oversight against torture and maltreatment. However, in Safeguard Defenders’ research of RSDL, not a single victim said they had been visited by the Procuratorate. The same regulation also gives police the right to block any visit if they deem it would impede their investigation. 35 Until July 2018, Li Wenzu the wife of rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang suspected he may have died in detention as she had had no news of him for almost three years. He was eventually released and the two were reunited in April 2020. Please see: https://hongkongfp.com/2018/07/13/wife-detained-chinese- human-rights-lawyer-wang-quanzhang-hears-alive-first-time-3-years/